ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An applied methodology for stakeholder identificationin transdisciplinary research

Julia Leventon1,2 • Luuk Fleskens2,3 • Heleen Claringbould4 • Gudrun Schwilch5 •

Rudi Hessel6

Received: 20 May 2015 / Accepted: 6 July 2016 / Published online: 26 July 2016

� The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract In this paper we present a novel methodology for

identifying stakeholders for the purpose of engaging with

them in transdisciplinary, sustainability research projects.

In transdisciplinary research, it is important to identify a

range of stakeholders prior to the problem-focussed stages

of research. Early engagement with diverse stakeholders

creates space for them to influence the research process,

including problem definition, from the start. However,

current stakeholder analysis approaches ignore this initial

identification process, or position it within the subsequent

content-focussed stages of research. Our methodology was

designed as part of a research project into a range of soil

threats in seventeen case study locations throughout Eur-

ope. Our methodology was designed to be systematic

across all sites. It is based on a snowball sampling approach

that can be implemented by researchers with no prior

experience of stakeholder research, and without requiring

significant financial or time resources. It therefore fosters

transdisciplinarity by empowering physical scientists to

identify stakeholders and understand their roles. We

describe the design process and outcomes, and consider

their applicability to other research projects. Our method-

ology therefore consists of a two-phase process of design

and implementation of an identification questionnaire. By

explicitly including a design phase into the process, it is

possible to tailor our methodology to other research

projects.

Keywords Sustainability � Participation � Soildegradation � Interdisciplinarity

Introduction

Early identification of stakeholders around a natural

resource is critical for meaningful transdisciplinary

research into the management of that resource. A stake-

holder is any actor that can affect, or can be affected by, a

decision or action (after Freeman 1984). Researchers in

natural resource management consistently find that stake-

holders should be included in solution-finding in order to

facilitate negotiation and mutual learning; reduce conflict;

and increase support and actor buy-in for decisions made

(e.g. Grimble and Wellard 1997; Ravnborg and Wester-

mann 2002; Dougill et al. 2006). Transdisciplinary

research approaches build on such rationale by bringing

together stakeholders to integrate their different forms of

Handled by D. A. Loorbach, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The

Netherlands.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

& Julia Leventon

leventon@leuphana.de

1 Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University,

Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Luneburg, Germany

2 Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds,

Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

3 Soil Physics and Land Management Group, Wageningen

University, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The

Netherlands

4 Consult and Research on Participation and Gender in

Environmental issues (Corepage), Buys Ballotstraat 35,

3572 ZT Utrecht, The Netherlands

5 Centre for Development and Environment CDE, University

of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

6 Team Soil, Water and Land Use, Alterra, Wageningen UR,

P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

123

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

DOI 10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1

knowledge and ideas in solution-oriented, socially robust

research (Lang et al. 2012; Bracken et al. 2014; Hurni and

Wiesmann 2014). In an ideal transdisciplinary research

project, integration between science and society should

occur to shape research agendas, produce knowledge, and

incorporate such knowledge into social and scientific

practice (Jahn et al. 2012). Stakeholders could be engaged

in transdisciplinary research for three main reasons: (1)

normative, in order to represent a democratic ideal by

focussing on the process of inclusion; (2) substantive, to

harness knowledge and risk perceptions from stakeholders

in order to improve outcomes; and (3) instrumental, to

increase the legitimacy of pre-defined decisions and

therefore increase effectiveness [(Fiorino 1990, and as

expanded on by Stirling (2008)].

Prior to undertaking any form of transdisciplinary

research, researchers need to understand the stakeholder

environment, in order that they can consider whom to

include and how that impacts upon achieving the purpose.

Stirling (2008) highlights that including only experts

‘closes down’ the participation space and narrows the

scope for appraisal. This may be appropriate for some

kinds of decisions and actions (Mathie and Greene 1997).

However, ‘opening up’ to include non-experts widens

discourses, which should be a precondition of appraising

decisions and shaping agendas (Stirling 2008). Key to such

opening up is to include a diversity of stakeholder per-

spectives in order that a broad range of ideas and opinions

are highlighted, and can be contested and discussed by

participants (Cuppen 2012). In particular, marginalised

actors must be engaged in a way that allows real influence

in the decision-making process (Wester et al. 2003).

However, a key challenge in transdisciplinary research lies

in knowing who the stakeholders are in the first place, and

thus identifying the population from which the sample of

stakeholders can be drawn. This requires moving beyond

pre- and narrowly defined networks to ensure participation

from the ‘right’ stakeholders at appropriate times in the

research to achieve these ideals (Stauffacher et al. 2008;

Lang et al. 2012). Thus a necessary precursor to transdis-

ciplinary research is a stakeholder identification phase that

provides a baseline understanding of stakeholders, includ-

ing who they are and what their roles are. Such a baseline

allows researchers to consider who the stakeholders are

prior to considering who to engage with, and how to do so,

in the transdisciplinary research.

In this paper, we outline a systematic (yet flexible)

methodology for stakeholder identification. The method-

ology allows for early identification of stakeholders. Once

identified, researchers can consider which stakeholders

they need to engage with and how, thus allowing produc-

tive engagement of stakeholders in transdisciplinary

research projects. We formulated our approach for use

across diverse case study sites in the transdisciplinary

research project RECARE. The RECARE project examines

a range of soil threats across European countries. In total,

there are 17 different case studies, summarised with loca-

tion and soil threat in Table 1. The project is establishing

stakeholder platforms in each case study location to foster a

joint learning environment for stakeholders and research-

ers, with the intention of producing solutions-orientated

research (Schwilch et al. 2012). However, before solutions

can be co-produced, deliberations with stakeholders about

what the problem is should be part of the process. Through

Table 1 Case study sites in the

RECARE projectCase study Primary soil threat Location Country

1 Erosion Frienisberg Switzerland

2 Erosion Caramulo Portugal

3 Erosion Peristerona watershed Cyprus

4 Salinization Timbaki, Crete Greece

5 Compaction Aarslev Denmark

6 Soil sealing Poznan and Wroclaw Poland

7 Desertification Canyoles River Basin Spain

8 Desertification Gunnarsholt Iceland

9 Floods and Landslides Vansio-Hobol Catchment Norway

10 Floods and Landslides Mjava Catchment Slovak Republic

11 Loss of organic matter Veenweidegebied The Netherlands

12 Loss of organic matter Broddbo Sweden

13 Loss of organic matter Olden Eibergen The Netherlands

14 Loss of organic matter Veneto Region Italy

15 Contamination Guadiamar Spain

16 Contamination Copsa Mica Romania

17 Loss of soil biodiversity Isle of Purbeck United Kingdom

764 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

a structured process using a series of stakeholder work-

shops and other transdisciplinary elements, the causes,

impacts, problems and possible solutions to soil threats are

explored and sustainable land management practices

identified and tested with land users (see Hessel et al. 2014

for details). Thus, the RECARE project seeks substantive

stakeholder engagement in order to bring together different

types of knowledge to produce better soil management

outcomes. Because of its strong reliance on stakeholder

engagement, and the wide variety in stakeholders antici-

pated between the case studies, the project provided an

ideal opportunity to develop a simple yet structured iden-

tification procedure.

We share our approach for use in future research

because a transparent stakeholder identification process to

precede and inform transdisciplinary research is largely

absent from the literature. Often descriptions in academic

articles and project reports of how stakeholders were

identified are opaque. Therefore researchers new to a topic,

location, or indeed to transdisciplinary research, are left

without clear examples and tools to start their research.

Several excellent review papers have provided typologies

to understand and analyse stakeholders around natural

resource management (e.g. Reed 2008; Prell et al. 2009;

Reed et al. 2009). However, there is little information on

how to identify a population of stakeholders in the first

place. Practitioner-oriented guidelines are more helpful; for

example guidelines produced by the Caribbean Natural

Resources Institute (Renard 2004) include simple steps and

questions for a person to identify stakeholders (p.7).

However, these still place significant emphasis on the

researcher’s knowledge, and are more vague on how (and

with whom) to answer identification questions. Because

transdisciplinary research encourages scientists to engage

with stakeholders in generating knowledge and solutions,

we seek to fill this gap and provide a structured and useable

tool for stakeholder identification.

Our approach to stakeholder identification is novel

because it bridges between two emerging approaches to

stakeholder identification: collective identification and

researcher immersion. Under collective identification,

transdisciplinary researchers incorporate identification into

the first research session (usually a workshop) with stake-

holders (see, e.g., Dougill et al. 2006). In this case, a pre-

liminary group are identified by the researchers using their

prior knowledge. Then further stakeholders are identified by

the researchers and these stakeholders while knowledge is

already being created, meaning that some stakeholders are

not engaged from the very beginning of the project. Con-

versely, under researcher immersion, researchers (e.g., Dyer

et al. 2013) focus on identification prior to the first data-

generation exercise by immersion in a research problem. In

this case, the researchers perform initial desk-based

research to identify stakeholders, and then extend this

knowledge through exploratory or pilot studies in a case

study area. The researchers then organise a stakeholder

engagement event, where the researchers and stakeholders

generate knowledge. However, this approach is done by

focussing on one (or a few) case study, with long lead-in

times, and substantial resources and social science skills

committed to identifying stakeholders (see, for example

Ravnborg and Westermann 2002; Leventon and Antypas

2012). By bridging these two approaches, we are able to

build on researcher knowledge without requiring long lead-

in times or large resources, in order to identify stakeholders

prior to trying to engage with them in the research project.

Our stakeholder identification methodology comprises a

conceptually informed questionnaire that is refined to the

specific research (and researcher) context via a preliminary

design phase. In presenting this methodology, we first

outline the theoretical requirements for stakeholder iden-

tification for transdisciplinary research. This provides a

conceptual framing for our methodology. We supplement

this by considering the practical design challenges pre-

sented by undertaking identification across a range of case

study areas and contexts. We then present the practical

development of the stakeholder identification question-

naire. Here, we highlight how we designed the question-

naire to match the conceptual framing, and the practical

demands of the RECARE project. The proceeding section

then describes the identification process, including the

questionnaire and supporting materials, and practical

implementation steps. This section includes a critical

reflection on the implementation process as conducted in

RECARE. Our discussion section continues by reflecting

on the extent to which our questionnaire met its conceptual

goals, and provided an in-depth understanding of the

stakeholder baseline in each case study, such that case

studies could consider stakeholders for possible inclusion

in the transdisciplinary research stages of the project. We

therefore highlight a number of improvements or modifi-

cations that could be made. We discuss how the method-

ology can be applied to other transdisciplinary research

projects. In this way, we provide a transferable approach to

identify stakeholders, and understand the stakeholder

environment for sustainability research, in order that

informed selection and engagement can occur.

Design considerations for stakeholderidentification in transdisciplinary research

Conceptual considerations

Our overall project aim in RECARE is to engage stake-

holders for substantive involvement, i.e., to harness

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 765

123

knowledge from stakeholders in order to improve outcomes

(cf. Fiorino 1990). Such substantive involvement includes

co-defining the problems caused by soil threats, identifying

management options, and exploring their adoption and

implementation. Whether or not this aim is met across the

case studies, what we present here is a transferable process

to identify stakeholders in order that they can be engaged

with. Sustainable solutions to soil threats can only come

from a process in which perceptions, experiences, aspira-

tions, stakes and expectations are shared between stake-

holders, such that promising ideas emerge for subsequent

testing and joint appraisal. This is because ‘solutions’ often

imply (co-produced) technologies as well as (co-agreed)

organisational, institutional and governance approaches in

which technologies are embedded. In short, the rationale

for why we need stakeholder engagement in RECARE is

simply that researchers cannot develop solutions to soil

threats that ‘fit’ without a clear mandate from stakeholders

to assist them in countering the threat.

However, a core requirement for engaging with stake-

holders in this way is that stakeholders are identified prior

to implementing the substantive research stages that seek to

generate such knowledge. Where the aim of the research is

to go beyond understanding stakeholders to also formu-

lating solutions, it is desirable for the researchers and

participants to have as good a starting population of

stakeholders as possible before this first data-generation

exercise; a baseline understanding of stakeholders (who,

and their roles) is needed. In this way, participation does

not become onerous in terms of time commitment, and

decisions are not shaped before important stakeholders are

included. Indeed, stakeholders most appreciate transdisci-

plinary research processes when they have been involved

in formulating issues from the very beginning (Bracken

et al. 2014). Similarly, opportunities to enhance the impact

of the scientific outcomes are larger when stakeholders are

engaged from early in the project, and through the project

lifetime (Phillipson et al. 2012).

Identification approaches need to assist researchers in

opening up their pre-existing networks, so that there is

opportunity to extend participation opportunities to all

actors who could be considered to hold a stake in the

research problem. Whenever stakeholders are engaged in

research, an initial challenge lies in the question of who to

engage with, where to draw the boundary between relevant

and not relevant, and therefore in judging who should be

listened to (Vos 2003). Researchers must consider stake-

holders that belong to a range of networks, and not just

those that all already know each other (Prell et al. 2009).

Focussing only on those previously known and active

stakeholders increases the chance of missing hidden,

remote or less obvious stakeholders (Reed 2008). Thus

stakeholder identification should seek to cover a diversity

of stakeholders around a problem in order to allow range of

opinions, priorities and options to emerge and be discussed

(Prell et al. 2009). Such diversity in perspectives is not

necessarily synonymous with diversity in sectors or areas

of interest (Cuppen et al. 2010).

Identifying a range of stakeholders necessitates consid-

ering all types of stake in a problem or research area.

Stakeholders may include actors related to a range of fields

of activity that either impact, or are impacted by, the

research problem; in the case of soil threats these may

include water management, forestry, agricultural produc-

tion, tourism, etc. Understanding interactions with the

problem includes considering the role the stakeholder plays

in problem creation, how they experience and are affected

by the problem, and what capacity they have to enact

solutions. Stakeholders may have different backgrounds,

views and perceptions, and may not even agree that there is

a problem at all. The primary aim of the stakeholder will

influence how they interact with each other and the par-

ticular soil threat; for example it matters whether they seek

agricultural production or biodiversity conservation (Fisher

et al. 2009). Their role and capacity to act may also be

influenced by characteristics such as sector, location and

ownership, and also willingness to act (Prell et al. 2010;

Nieto-Romero et al. 2016).

Stakeholder identification should also be appropriate to

sensitivities and dynamics between stakeholders. For

example, knowledge exchange and transdisciplinarity is

considered more effective when researchers are considered

stakeholders themselves, rather than as outsiders or holders

of certain powers (Mitton et al. 2007). It is therefore

important that the identification stage creates a situation

whereby the stakeholders and researchers perceive that

they have equal power and authority. In addition, attention

must be paid to time constraints of the stakeholder partic-

ipants, and the potential effects of cultural constraints

(Jakobsen et al. 2004). Cultural constraints exist between

researchers and stakeholders from different disciplines and

backgrounds, such that they have different expectations of

theoretical and practical contributions (Fry 2001). Cultural

differences also occur between stakeholders from different

socio-political backgrounds. For example, acceptance of

participation in environmental decision-making is currently

poorly institutionalised in Romania (Stringer et al. 2009)

and other Eastern-bloc countries due to low social capital

and the legacies of communist regimes (Letki 2004).

Practical design considerations

The RECARE project needed to identify stakeholders in 17

different case study sites, with each case study concerned

with a different location and/or soil threat (Table 1). Our

stakeholder identification process needed to highlight

766 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

stakeholders that were affected by, or could affect, the soil

threat in the particular location of the case study site.

However, in the RECARE project, it was not possible for a

single research team-member to identify stakeholders in

every case because of the volume of case studies and the

range of working languages. Instead, each site is being led

by a different case study leader, in a different research

institution. Some case study leaders had previously

engaged with stakeholders in their case location, and others

had not, and all are primarily engaged with physical sci-

ence disciplines.

A key challenge to identifying stakeholders was in

creating a process that was useable and meaningful for all

case study leaders. Where case study leaders had previous

contact with stakeholders, the identification process needed

to encourage them to extend their contacts outside of

existing networks. Where leaders had no prior contact, the

process needed to stimulate identification of a completely

new set of stakeholders. Furthermore, case study leaders

had variable experience engaging with more social-science

aspects of sustainability science, and with transdisciplinary

research.

Outcomes: the stakeholder identificationmethodology and its implementation

Overall approach

Our stakeholder identification methodology is implemented

over two phases, both of which take place prior to engaging

stakeholders in the transdisciplinary research stages (see

Fig. 1). The first phase is a design phase where we worked

as a core team (the authors) with the rest of the RECARE

researchers in order to develop a tool that they could use to

identify stakeholders in the second phase (implementation).

Our design phase allowed us to account for conceptual

considerations while addressing the practical demands of

stakeholder identification for the RECARE project. We

thus worked with the case study leaders to ensure their

concerns and abilities were accounted for. The resultant

tool (a questionnaire) was then implemented by case study

leaders with support from a central researcher (the lead

author).

The design phase

The design phase was split into two stages, the first of

which was co-design of the identification method with the

RECARE case study leaders. As a project team (all

RECARE researchers), this allowed us to develop shared

understandings of key concepts and ideas, including the

purpose of stakeholder identification and engagement.

Such space for exploration and negotiation of expectations

has been shown to be important in team-managed inter-

disciplinary research (Jakobsen et al. 2004; Mattor et al.

2014). Having a co-design stage also allowed the core team

(authors) to understand the concerns and barriers that the

case study leaders perceived around participating in

stakeholder identification. As a core team, we could also

understand the different types of stake that actors might

hold in the various case studies. This understanding meant

we could consider how to capture them all when designing

the tool. In this way, we could account for the practical

challenges presented by the RECARE project.

Co-design centred around a discussion group held

between the core team and the case study leaders, followed

up by a feedback form (see supplementary material S1).

The discussion and subsequent meeting minutes confirmed

the challenges of understanding and culture, and of time

commitment of case study leaders. A heated discussion was

prompted around the issue of the appropriateness of a

process to case study locations. Some partners said that

they did not feel an identification process was appropriate

in the area they worked in, particularly in former Eastern-

bloc countries, and therefore expressed reluctance to

approach stakeholders. These partners argued that in sen-

sitive case studies, perhaps with turbulent political histories

or sensitive soil threats such as industrial pollution,

stakeholders would be suspicious of talking to scientists

about other stakeholders. Case study leaders were nervous

that a structured stakeholder identification process would

take too much of their time, and thus cause extra work.

Discussion was useful to reassure partners that the time

commitment would not be onerous. However, time com-

mitments of case study leaders became an important con-

sideration in designing the protocol. Collectively, these

concerns prompted broad discussion on the value of the

transdisciplinary research approach, and therefore con-

tributed to a space of developing mutual understanding

amongst all case study leaders. In particular, they high-

lighted the need to develop a protocol that all participants

felt comfortable using, and that could not be interpreted as

asking stakeholders to report on others.

We took these concerns into the next stage of the design

phase, the method design. As a core team, we recognised

that case study leaders needed a simple and easy to

implement tool, with plenty of support to implement it. The

identification tool was therefore designed as a structured,

two-part questionnaire (described here, and provided in

S2). The questionnaire was chosen as a structured method,

that could be accompanied with clear instructions for those

case study leaders who felt less confident in implementing

the identification process. Part 1 of the questionnaire was

designed to characterise a stakeholder, using characteristics

highlighted as important by case study leaders during the

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 767

123

co-design phase. Part 2 prompted identification of further

stakeholders. The co-design stage also highlighted a

number of points at which the resulting stakeholder anal-

ysis would feed into other parts of the overall project. We

therefore designed the questionnaire to provide maximum

beneficial information for these other parts of the project.

This helped to save time for the case study leaders as it

meant that they did not have to repeat work throughout the

project.

Support tools were developed alongside the question-

naire in order to address the practical concerns of the case

study leaders. Most participants indicated that they would

like more information on the purpose of the stakeholder

identification in this project. The request was addressed in

the support and introductory materials provided to case

study partners. These included an instruction sheet that

gave an overview of the process, alongside step-by-step

instructions (see S3). The instructions were also explained

in a PowerPoint presentation with voice recording that was

available for partners to download. Two examples of

completed questionnaires were provided, and a list of fre-

quently asked questions (FAQs, see S4) was also supplied.

The FAQs were intended to answer a range of questions

that followed the initial consultation and feedback, and to

pre-empt a number of foreseen issues. A participant

information sheet (S5) was also provided in order to assist

partners in introducing the process to any stakeholders that

they contacted. All these documents were made available

to partners online, and via email, and partners were

encouraged to contact the lead author on email or Skype

with any questions or problems.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire sought to build on and extend the case

study leaders’ existing networks by prompting a snowball

sampling approach. Case study leaders were asked to fill

out the questionnaire as the first stakeholder themselves.

Identification methodology steps

Implementation Phase

Transdisiplinary research phases

Stage 1: Co-design of

identification criteria

Stage 2: Design of method

Implement questionnaire

Stakeholder engagement

Legend

Researcher(s)

Stakeholders

Core Team

Design Phase

Questionnaire

People Purpose

Develop common understandings;Understand researcher concerns;

Highlight types of stake

Incorporate outcomes of co-design;Incorporate conceptual considerations;

Develop simple identification tool and support materials

Extend existing stakeholder networks;Fully consider all possible stakes and

stakeholders;Recognise cultural challenges

Fig. 1 The RECARE methodology for identifying stakeholders for

transdisciplinary research, highlighting the phases and steps of the

methodology, the people involved, and the purpose of each step.

Researchers are shown as blue squares; stakeholders are red circles;

and the core team (paper authors) are shown as yellow triangles

768 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

Part 1 asked them to provide basic information to charac-

terise themselves (see Table 2). In part 2, they were asked

to list the other stakeholders that they already knew. They

also provided basic information on their classification,

according to their field of activity, role and sector. This

section was used to create a snowball sample. Case study

leaders were asked to complete a ‘part 1’ form for each of

these identified stakeholders in order to characterise them.

They were then told to create a sample of at least six of

those identified stakeholders. They were instructed to

ensure that the six covered the range of roles, sectors and

fields of activity that were included in their Part 2 table.

The sample formed the core of the snowball sample and

were, therefore, approached for a short interview, either in

person or on the telephone. In this interview the stake-

holder was asked to list further stakeholders that they

knew, and thus complete a part 2 of the questionnaire. The

case study partner was asked to complete a part 1 for each

newly identified stakeholder. Case study partners were

asked to continue the snowball sampling process until they

started receiving a high number of repeats of the same

stakeholders, and no new stakeholders.

The characterisation section (part 1) of the questionnaire

enabled the case study leaders to consider the full range of

possible stakes, and uncover potentially hidden stake-

holders using the characterisation section (part 1) to select

the snowball sample. The instructions provided guidance

on ensuring that this sample covered as much diversity as

possible in terms of stakeholder characteristics by looking

across the table of characteristics. In this way, categorisa-

tion of stakeholders accompanied identification in order to

ascertain whether or not some types of stakeholder are

under-represented or absent (Vos and Achterkamp 2006).

Therefore, because we set out to avoid only identifying a

small group of similar, connected stakeholders and broaden

the stakeholder environment, preliminary categorisation of

stakeholders as they were identified served as a control, or

iteration, on the identification process. For the same reason,

partners were encouraged to include in their sample some

stakeholders with which they had not had previous contact.

This had the added benefit of raising awareness of the

project more broadly.

Further extension of existing networks, and of the

range of stakeholders uncovered, was ensured by the lead

author. Completed forms were collected by the lead

author in order to summarise stakeholders, check for

problems or gaps, and provide feedback to the case study

partners. This step reduced the time commitment for case

study partners as it meant they did not have to integrate

or analyse data collected. It also gave an opportunity for

some impartial input and iteration. The submission was

checked to see if instructions had been followed, at least

six identified stakeholders had been contacted, and that

part 1 forms had been completed for all stakeholders

identified by the partners and their contacted stakehold-

ers. Where there were gaps in the data, the partner was

contacted and asked to submit the missing data. When

submissions were considered complete, the lead author

input all data into an Excel spreadsheet. The tables were

then considered by the lead author, in combination with

her understanding of the soil threat. Administrative

levels, topics or sectors that appeared to be underrepre-

sented were identified. Suggestions were then made to

case study partners via a written report about gaps they

may wish to fill, and what function this would play in

their stakeholder engagement. In future, allowing time

for face-to-face feedback and discussion would be an

improvement.

Issues of sensitive dynamics between stakeholders were

built into the questionnaire’s design. We ensured all

questions could be completed by the case study partner

using publically available information, or by short, non-

intrusive questions to the stakeholder in question. By only

requesting publically available information, we hoped to

ensure that no stakeholder felt that the researcher was

asking sensitive questions. It also meant that the case study

Table 2 The purpose of the constituent parts of the questionnaire

Questionnaire

section

Purpose

Part 1: characterising the stakeholder

1A Basic information on the stakeholder, including their size and location

1B Checks if stakeholder is actually multiple stakeholder, for example if there are local and national branches with different

functions

1C Considers the spatial location and scale of the stakeholders’ interest

1D Defines the stakeholders interest, including their field of activity, form of role and their sector

Part 2: snowball sample

2A Collects information on the other stakeholders that are known to the responding stakeholder

2B Collects information on stakeholder engagement opportunities that the stakeholder knows of

2C Collects information on the relevant policies that the stakeholder is aware of

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 769

123

partner could still complete the questionnaire in the case of

feeling too uncomfortable to contact the stakeholder. Fur-

thermore, all case study leaders were asked to conduct the

identification prior to the first session where they would be

trained in the transdisciplinary workshop approach. This

meant that stakeholders would be identified in plenty of

time to be engaged in the research, and not once this

transdisciplinary phase was already under way. Finally,

where case study leaders did choose to contact stakeholders

during identification, the process offered an opportunity to

introduce the project and the research team.

Implementation of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was generally well implemented by case

study partners, and extended the number and diversity of

stakeholders known in most cases. Of the 17 partners who

submitted, 10 had accurately followed the instructions and

provided between 10 and 49 part 1 completed question-

naires. The remaining partners submitted some question-

naires, but had not followed the instructions in full. In some

cases, this meant that no further details had been submitted

for stakeholders identified in the first snowball. These

partners were contacted and the additional details were

requested. Table 3 demonstrates that in at least 9 of the

cases, the snowball sample approach extended the number

of stakeholders known (Table 3, section A). Furthermore,

the final set of identified stakeholders covered a wide range

of fields of interest in addition to the farmers and land

owners that partners initially predicted, including educa-

tion, community development, insurance, and traffic man-

agement (Table 3, section B). Identified stakeholders also

represented a range of administrative levels (Table 3,

section C).

The process was most effective when it was imple-

mented by engaged and proactive case study leaders. The

lead author was contacted multiple times by a number of

researchers with questions about the process. While these

case study partners initially seemed more uncertain, they

engaged with the process and were proactive in seeking

help. These researchers submitted completed question-

naires on time, and identified a large number of stake-

holders from diverse categories (e.g., case studies 2, 5, 9 in

Table 3). Therefore, engaged and proactive case study

partners seemed better at using the questionnaire to pro-

duce useable outcomes. Where partners submitted on time,

and/or in communication with the task leader, the task

leader was able to control the quality of data submitted, fill

in gaps and provide feedback to case study partners as the

process evolved. Such iteration and feedback was more

limited in partners that submitted late. However, in all

cases, a written feedback report provided a further round of

input and feedback.

The analysis was used in the training for case study

partners on stakeholder interaction organised in Wagenin-

gen, The Netherlands, in September 2014. In the training

sessions, case study partners were encouraged to think

about which stakeholders they might engage with, and

how. Each case study partner was given a summary of 7–15

case study stakeholders from their own list with informa-

tion on size, topic, role, sector, and aim included. The case

study partners were asked to estimate the stakeholders’

motivation for and influence on the sustainable manage-

ment of the local soil threat. This was done by placing each

stakeholder onto an influence-motivation matrix (see for

example Schwilch et al. 2009). The exercise further helped

to identify if any important stakeholder groups that should

be involved were missing, and may need to be approached

specifically. As the identification information is being used

in the ongoing RECARE project, case study partners are

making suggestions for future changes to the identification

protocol. The column ‘‘aim’’ contained the most useful

information for this exercise, and facilitated the placement

of stakeholders onto the matrix. However, as a recom-

mendation from the training, the case study partners sug-

gested to add to the protocol a specific question on the

‘‘type of stake in the soil threat’’. Such a question would

have an open response, and is therefore more descriptive,

allowing a large range of responses, including, for exam-

ple: ‘‘grows crops in the soil’’; or ‘‘has to remove soil

sediment from drainage ditches when they are blocked’’. In

this way, the case study leader would be encouraged to

consider the explicit link between the stakeholder and the

research question, thus assisting their understanding (and

identification) of stakeholders.

Some feedback on the stakeholder identification process

was obtained from case study partners during the second

project plenary meeting held in Padova in March 2015.

Case study partners acknowledged the clear and formalised

process of identifying stakeholders. Case study partners

reported that in least 12 out of the 17 case study sites the

stakeholder analysis enabled to identify new stakeholders,

beyond those known by the case study partner before (see

Table 3, section A). Furthermore, the funders’ evaluation

of the project (September 2015) was complimentary about

the stakeholder identification report. It highlighted that the

individual recommendations made to case study partners

were very relevant.

A transferable stakeholder identification approachfor transdisciplinary research

The methodology outlined in this article enabled the

identification of a diverse range of stakeholders for

engagement at the appropriate (early) time (Stauffacher

770 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

Table

3Stakeholdersidentified

bythequestionnaire

process

Case

study

A.Stakeholder

numbers

B.Field

ofactivity

Initiala

Finalb

Education

Forestry

Env.

protection/

conservation

Agriculture

Recreation

Research

and

development

Product/

commodity

exploitation

Water

managem

ent

Landuse

policy

and

planning

Community

development

Other

133

44

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Insurance

2d

19

XX

XX

XX

Firemanagem

ent

3c

8Y,X

Y,X

XY,X

XY,X

CulturalHeritage

44

10

XY,X

Y,X

XTourism

water

endusers

construction

526

46

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

XY,X

Trafficmanagem

ent

6c

9X

XX

X

7c

6X

XX

X

8c

48

XX

XX

XX

Soil

9d

35

XX

XX

XInsurance

companies

Road

authorities

10

913

Y,X

Y,X

XX

Y,X

Landowners

11

d31

XX

X

12

06

XX

XX

13

d49

XX

XX

XX

XX

14

626

XX

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

Y,X

15

d6

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

16

616

XY,X

Y,X

Y,X

X

17

c19

XX

XX

XX

Military

Landscapeprotection

designation

Case

study

C.Level

Local

Sub-

National

National

1X

XX

2X

X

3X

X

4X

X

5X

XX

6X

XX

7X

X

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 771

123

Table

3continued

Case

study

C.Level

Local

Sub-

National

National

8X

X

9X

XX

10

XX

11

XX

12

XX

X

13

cc

c

14

XX

15

XX

16

XX

17

XX

X

Yfieldofactivityincluded

ininitiallistofstakeholdersfrom

thecase

studyleader

atthebeginningoftheprocess

(inform

ationcanonly

beprovided

wheresuperscriptlettersdandcarenot

usedin

the‘stakeholder

numbers’

columns).Xfieldofactivityandlevel

included

bytheendoftheprocess

aNumber

identified

bycase

studypartnersontheirinitialcompletionofPart2ofthequestionnaire

bNumber

ofstakeholdersidentified

attheendoftheprocess

cInform

ationnotprovided

bycase

studypartner

dInform

ationwas

provided

directlyin

Excelform

at,rather

than

inquestionnaire

form

,meaningparts

oftheprocess

werenotvisible

tothecore

team

772 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

et al. 2008) in the transdisciplinary research project. We

have created a process that is specifically designed to

identify stakeholders so that they are known and visible for

consideration for inclusion in the transdisciplinary stages

of the research process. Rather than using an initial

stakeholder workshop or event to identify further stake-

holders, we guide researchers through a structured

approach for early identification. In this way, stakeholder

identification is designed into the research project so that it

maximises the stakeholders’ opportunities to contribute

and shape the research (as per Fiorino’s instrumental rea-

son) (see Fig. 1). For those scientists with pre-existing

stakeholder networks, it helps to diversify and broaden

these, ensuring that scientists are able to consider partici-

pants that represent a range of knowledge and experience

(as per Fiorino’s normative and substantive reasons). For

those without networks, or with more uncertainty around

conducting such ‘social’ research, the protocol provides

clear and transparent steps, with support on approaching

stakeholders to identify a population from which to con-

sider participants. Importantly, the questionnaire is non-

intrusive for stakeholders, catering to cases with cultural

constraints or sensitivities around approaching stakehold-

ers. Indeed, the process can create an opportunity to

introduce the research to stakeholders.

While our questionnaire seeks to increase and diversify

the stakeholders known to the research team, there remains

potential for bias to be introduced by the implementing

researcher. We don’t know the extent to which their indi-

vidual values or existing networks have influenced the

identification process, and therefore influences the per-

spectives (Lang et al. 2012). This issue of bias is in part

moderated by the core team; in cases where the question-

naire yielded limited stakeholder diversity, recommenda-

tions from the central researcher served to prompt further

reflection by the case study leader. However, subjective

identification of researchers can influence the outcomes of

the research project (Fletcher 2007). Follow up research,

potentially as part of the on going project, should seek to

evaluation how differences in implementation have influ-

enced identification, and therefore engagement and par-

ticipation, and therefore have influenced the overall

research project (Stokols et al. 2008).

Bias should be addressed by seeing our questionnaire as

a foundational stage in the overall transdisciplinary project.

The questionnaire cannot ensure that a diverse range of

stakeholders and perspectives are included in the trans-

disciplinary research stages, nor that the dynamics between

stakeholders are managed; it merely provides a population

of stakeholders from which to sample, and an under-

standing of what dynamics may exist. In case studies with a

low population of stakeholders, partners could invite all of

them to participate in the stakeholder platforms. In cases

with a high number of stakeholders, a further sampling

stage may be necessary. In our project, this is being han-

dled at the individual case study level, with guidance from

specialised researchers. However, a sampling stage could

be considered as a future add-on to the identification

methodology. It should draw on approaches that seek to

sample based on diversity in stakeholder perspectives (e.g.

Cuppen 2012). By actively seeking to invite stakeholders

with diverse perspectives, there is a higher likelihood of

moving away from the researcher’s perspectives, and thus a

higher chance of removing their identification bias, though

the sampler would need to be sensitive to problematic

relationships (and their management).

As part of its role as a foundational transdisciplinary

research stage, the questionnaire and its design process acts

as a site of integration and the negotiation of common

understandings between project members (see Jakobsen

et al. 2004). In terms of the questionnaire, clear instructions

and support materials meant that even under-confident

scientists with no prior engagement with social sciences

were able to conduct comprehensive identifications. This is

a benefit of our approach as it has helped to build inter-

disciplinarity within the researchers in the project, in that

physical science specialists could engage in social science

processes. In addition, the process of designing the ques-

tionnaire provided a forum for all researchers (from all

disciplines) to understand each other. Such mutual under-

standings included the idea of what a stakeholder is, and

why they should be engaged. But also extended to practical

challenges, including cultural barriers to approaching

stakeholders, and the problem of researcher time limita-

tions. As a core team, we were able to respond to concerns

in the design of the questionnaire. But we were also able to

be transparent about the time commitment involved in the

set-up stages of the project, and the overall benefit of this to

outcomes of the project. We believe this process increased

the engagement of the researchers in the process, and led to

a well-implemented questionnaire.

From our experience, we would argue that a key tool to

facilitate mutual understanding in the project team is the

use of support and advice mechanisms. These support tools

allowed the researchers to interact easily with the process.

In our project, due to the large number of cases and geo-

graphical distribution, email and telephone were the most

appropriate solutions. However, researchers could consider

whether small group meetings or closer collaboration with

case study partners would also be possible. Such decisions

should be made in collaboration with the case study part-

ners, taking into account their requirements, concerns and

availability. Thus, the coordinating role, for facilitating

refinement of options, and providing support is important.

This coordinating person does not need to be a social sci-

entist. However, it is important that this person is confident

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 773

123

in stakeholder engagement because of their positioning as

an ‘expert’ for the task

The exact design of the questionnaire and the way

stakeholders are characterised may be of limited transfer-

ability; rather it would need to be tailored to the context of

a specific project and problem. The ways in which stake-

holders are characterised (location, topic, sector, etc.) may

need to be reviewed for the elements that are important for

the specific research project. Additionally, the answer

options for these multiple choice questions should be

specifically designed for the case study or studies included.

For example, asking if someone is a forest product certifier

may be deemed less relevant in case studies without

influence from the forestry sector. In cases of doubt, we

recommend that more options are included. In larger pro-

jects, such refinement would be the task of a core team.

Indeed the transferable methodology is the two-stage

process for refining and implementing the questionnaire,

and its positioning within the overall project (Fig. 1). Case

study partners should be engaged early in the project so

that mutual understanding can be achieved. We found that

a face-to-face discussion format was extremely beneficial

in fostering common understanding. Follow up with a

feedback form highlighted remaining areas of concern and

misunderstanding that could then be addressed in the

support materials. Such engagement should also provide an

opportunity to consider how support will be provided, and

to refine parts of the protocol that refer to the characteri-

sation of stakeholders. The feedback form was most helpful

for this. The core team should then refine the protocol,

provide detailed instructions and maintain ongoing com-

munication with the case study partners throughout the

process. The same person or team should integrate results,

provide feedback and demonstrate the applicability of the

results.

Conclusions

The methodology outlined in this paper provides a useable,

systematic approach for identifying stakeholders at the start

of transdisciplinary projects. It is designed to facilitate

identification of a broad range of stakeholders around a

given problem and/or location. The methodology com-

prises two phases: design and implementation of a ques-

tionnaire. We applied it to a large transdisciplinary

research project, so that multiple researchers can identify

stakeholders in a broad range of problem contexts. The

questionnaire allowed information to be collected in a

systematic way across all case study sites, such that

members of a core team could gain a cross-case under-

standing. The co-design stage of our process meant that the

questionnaire was designed to account for time constraints

of researchers, and to be sensitive to a range of social

contexts and cultural constraints. It also served as an

integration process for developing common understanding

of the research process throughout the project team. The

support materials provided made the questionnaire easy to

use for researchers with very little prior experience of

social research, provided they were committed to the pro-

cess. The questionnaire and its design/refinement process

can be a useful and transferable tool for increasing trans-

parency in the early stages of transdisciplinary research. In

particular, researchers can be more explicit about how

stakeholders were identified, and in how they then drew on

the stakeholder population for inclusion in a transdisci-

plinary project. Therefore, we can better understand who

has had opportunity to shape research outcomes.

We recommend that our questionnaire can be refined for

use (during the design phase) whenever there is a need to

identify stakeholders prior to considering who to include,

how, and before beginning to shape research or projects.

The problem context will shape how stakeholders may

need to be characterised. This should be adapted during an

initial design phase so that contexts and researcher con-

cerns can be accounted for in the refined questionnaire. The

adapted questionnaire can be used in single case study

sites, or in multiple cases (such as in our example). In

multiple-case research, it is useful to have a core team to

coordinate all stages of the process, and particularly to

provide support and iteration of results.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the case study

partners for their participation in the described identification process.

Thanks also go to Stephanie Jahn and Judith Kahle of Leuphana

University, Luneburg for reviewing an early version of this paper; and

to Ana Frelih-Larsen, Felicitas Bachmann and Lindsay Stringer for

comments on the protocol and supporting materials. Thanks also go to

two anonymous reviewers whose insights improved the paper. The

research leading to these results has received funding from the

European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)

under Grant Agreement No 603498 (RECARE project).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://crea

tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give

appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a

link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were

made.

References

Bracken LJ, Bulkeley HA, Whitman G (2014) Transdisciplinary

research: understanding the stakeholder perspective. J Environ

Plan Manag 58(7):1–18

Cuppen E (2012) Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder

dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci

45(1):23–46

774 Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775

123

Cuppen E, Breukers S, Hisschemoller M, Bergsma E (2010) Q

methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on

energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ

69(3):579–591

Dougill A, Fraser E, Holden J, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed M, Stagl S,

Stringer L (2006) Learning from doing participatory rural

research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. J Agric

Econ 57(2):259–275

Dyer JC, Leventon J, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Syampungani S,

Nshimbi M, Chama F, Kafwifwi A (2013) Partnership models

for climate compatible development: experiences from Zambia.

Resources 2(1):1–25

Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a

survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values

15(2):226–243

Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying

ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ

68(3):643–653

Fletcher S (2007) Influences on stakeholder representation in

participatory coastal management programmes. Ocean Coast

Manag 50(5–6):314–328

Freeman RE (1984) Stakeholder management: framework and

philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield

Fry GLA (2001) Multifunctional landscapes—towards transdisci-

plinary research. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4):159–168

Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural

resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experi-

ences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55(2):173–193

Hessel R, Reed MS, Geeson N, Ritsema CJ, van Lynden G, Karavitis

CA, Schwilch G, Jetten V, Burger P, van der Werff ten Bosch

MJ, Verzandvoort S, van den Elsen E, Witsenburg K (2014)

From framework to action: The DESIRE approach to combat

desertification. Environ Manag 54(5):935–950

Hurni H, Wiesmann U (2014) Transdisciplinarity in practice.

Experience from a concept-based research programme address-

ing global change and sustainable development. GAIA Ecol

Perspect Sci Soc 23(3):275–277

Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between

mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10

Jakobsen CH, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ (2004) Barriers and facilitators

to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape

analyses: a cross-country comparison. For Policy Econ

6(1):15–31

Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P,

Swilling M, Thomas C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in

sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges.

Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43

Letki N (2004) Socialization for participation? Trust, membership,

and democratization in East-Central Europe. Polit Res Q

57(4):665–679

Leventon J, Antypas A (2012) Multi-level Governance, multi-level

deficits: the case of drinking water management in Hungary.

Environ Policy Gov 22(4):253–267

Mathie A, Greene JC (1997) Stakeholder participation in evaluation:

How important is diversity? Eval Program Plan 20(3):279–285

Mattor K, Betsill M, Huayhuaca CA, Huber-Stearns H, Jedd T,

Sternlieb F, Bixler P, Luizza M, Cheng AS (2014) Transdisci-

plinary research on environmental governance: a view from the

inside. Environ Sci Policy 42:90–100

Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW (2007)

Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the

literature. Milbank Q 85(4):729–768

Nieto-Romero M, Milcu A, Leventon J, Mikulcak F, Fischer J (2016)

The role of scenarios in fostering collective action for sustain-

able development: lessons from central Romania. Land Use

Policy 50:156–168

Phillipson J, Lowe P, Proctor A, Ruto E (2012) Stakeholder

engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research.

J Environ Manag 95(1):56–65

Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social

network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat

Resour 22(6):501–518

Prell C, Reed M, Racin L, Hubacek K (2010) Competing structure,

competing views: the role of formal and informal social

structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecol Soc 15(4):34

Ravnborg HM, Westermann O (2002) Understanding interdependen-

cies: stakeholder identification and negotiation for collective

natural resource management. Agric Syst 73(1):41–56

Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental man-

agement: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J,

Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A

typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource

management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949

Renard Y (2004) Guidelines for stakeholder identification and

analysis: a manual for Caribbean natural resource managers

and planners. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute Guidelines

Series, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

Schwilch G, Bachmann F, Liniger HP (2009) Appraising and

selecting conservation measures to mitigate desertification and

land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global

best practices. Land Degrad Dev 20(3):308–326

Schwilch G, Bachmann F, Valente S, Coelho C, Moreira J, Laouina

A, Chaker M, Aderghal M, Santos P, Reed MS (2012) A

structured multi-stakeholder learning process for sustainable

land management. J Environ Manag 107:52–63

Stauffacher M, Flueler T, Krutli P, Scholz R (2008) Analytic and

dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case

study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss Prealpine

Region. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422

Stirling A (2008) ‘‘Opening Up’’ and ‘‘Closing Down’’: power,

participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology.

Sci Technol Hum Values 33(2):262–294

Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008) The

ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on

transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Supple-

ment):S96–S115

Stringer LC, Scrieciu SS, Reed MS (2009) Biodiversity, land

degradation, and climate change: participatory planning in

Romania. Appl Geogr 29(1):77–90

Vos JFJ (2003) Corporate social responsibility and the identification

of stakeholders. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag

10(3):141–152

Vos JFJ, Achterkamp MC (2006) Stakeholder identification in

innovation projects. Eur J Innov Manag 9(2):161–178

Wester P, Merrey DJ, de Lange M (2003) Boundaries of consent:

stakeholder representation in River Basin Management in

Mexico and South Africa. World Dev 31(5):797–812

Sustain Sci (2016) 11:763–775 775

123